Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test--Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison with Four Diagnostic Measures

Autor/inn/en	Eisenberg, Sarita; Victorino, Kristen; Murray, Sarah
Titel	Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test--Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison with Four Diagnostic Measures
Quelle	In: Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50 (2019) 4, S.673-682 (10 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0161-1461
Schlagwörter	Screening Tests; Preschool Children; Speech Tests; Language Tests; Test Validity; Diagnostic Tests; Comparative Analysis; Mean Length of Utterance + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Screening-Verfahren; Pre-school age; Preschool age; Child; Children; Pre-school education; Preschool education; Vorschulalter; Kind; Kinder; Vorschulkind; Vorschulkinder; Vorschulerziehung; Vorschule; Sprechtest; Language test; Sprachtest; Testvalidität; Diagnostic test; Diagnostischer Test
Abstract	Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test--Second Edition (Fluharty-2; Fluharty, 2001) for mass screenings of language at age 3 years. Method: Participants were sixty-two 3-year-old children, 31 who had failed and 31 who had passed the Fluharty-2. Performance on the screening was compared to 4 diagnostic measures: Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test--Preschool, Second Edition; mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLU[subscript m]), finite verb morphology composite, and Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn). Results: Children who failed the Fluharty-2 scored significantly lower on each of the diagnostic measures than children who passed the Fluharty-2, but the effect size for MLU[subscript m] was small. Scores on the Fluharty-2 were significantly correlated with scores on the diagnostic measures. There was significant agreement for pass/fail decisions between the Fluharty-2 and diagnostic measures only for IPSyn. However, even for the IPSyn, the agreement rate for passing was only moderate (80%) and the agreement rate for failing was only fair (68%). Conclusion: The Fluharty-2 showed limited agreement for pass/fail decisions with all 4 of the diagnostic measures. There was reason to question the validity of 2 of the diagnostic measures--Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test--Preschool, Second Edition and MLU[subscript m]--for diagnosing language impairment in 3-year-old children. However, there were no such concerns about finite verb morphology composite or IPSyn to account for the limited agreement. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Fluharty-2 would refer both too few at-risk children and too many nonrisk children for a follow-up assessment, making it an inefficient tool for mass screenings of language. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2200 Research Blvd #250, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel: 301-296-5700; Fax: 301-296-8580; e-mail: lshss@asha.org; Web site: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01